A Guide to the Use of Penalties to Improve Road Safety © International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies 2021. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof may not be reproduced, distributed, published, modified, cited, copied, translated into other languages or adapted without prior written permission from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. All photos used in this document are copyright of the IFRC unless otherwise indicated. Acknowledgements This guide was prepared for the Global Road Safety Partnership, a hosted programme of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Dr Chika Sakashita was the lead author, with significant contributions from Dr Judy Fleiter, Dave Cliff, Marcin Flieger, Brett Harman and Malcolm Lilley (Global Road Safety Partnership). Recommended citation: Sakashita, C. Fleiter, J.J, Cliff, D., Flieger, M., Harman, B. & Lilley, M (2021). A Guide to the Use of Penalties to Improve Road Safety. Global Road Safety Partnership, Geneva, Switzerland. TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 GLOSSARY 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE 7 INTRODUCTION 8 TYPES OF PENALTY 13 NON-LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF LEGAL PENALTIES 14 EFFECTIVENESS OF PENALTIES 16 HOW TO INCREASE THE EFFECTS OF PENALTIES 24 16 DETERRENCE THEORY 16 Certainty of punishment 17 Severity of punishment 20 Swiftness of punishment 21 PROCEDUREAL JUSTICE & PERCEIVED FAIRNESS 22 SOCIAL NORMS 23 COHERENT PENALTY ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM 24 APPENDIX 31 REFERENCES 3 A GUIDE TO THE USE OF PENALTIES TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY GLOSSARY Enforcement tolerance: The margin above the posted Specific deterrence: The extent to which a person is speed limit within which drivers will not be cited for a deterred from doing a certain behaviour because they speeding violation. This margin can be a percentage have been caught and penalised for that behaviour (e.g. 10% above the speed limit) or stated as an amount before and do not want to experience the consequences (e.g. 10 kms above the speed limit). again General deterrence: The extent to which people Traffic offence: Unlawful activities that occur while an are deterred from doing a certain behaviour such as individual is operating a motor vehicle. It may also be speeding, not because they have been caught, but referred to as traffic violations. because they believe they may be caught and the consequences are undesirable. Traffic offenders: Individuals who commit unlawful activities while operating a motor vehicle LMIC: Low- and middle-income countries Penalty: In this Guide, it specifically refers to a legal punishment imposed for breaking the traffic law or rules 4 A GUIDE TO THE USE OF PENALTIES TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Issuing penalties for traffic offences is a key component who can easily afford to pay the monetary fine. of behaviour change techniques which have been used Conversely, a person with greater financial means may extensively in many jurisdictions. The use of penalties be influenced more effectively by receiving a demerit aims to encourage people to use the road system safely point penalty than a monetary fine. and to comply with traffic laws. A suite of penalty options is available and includes: Deterrence principles suggest that people make Fines (graduated penalty, whereby increasing behavioural choices based on their personal perceptions seriousness of offence results in increasing fine about the threat of associated penalties. This threat amounts prescribed in a schedule) is said to be determined by a combination of the perceived threat of being caught for breaking the law Penalty point system (Demerit points or Merit (perceived risk of apprehension), and perceptions about points) the certainty, severity and swiftness of punishments Licence sanctions (Licence suspension, Immediate when caught. The research evidence about which of licence suspension, Licence disqualification, these four aspects are most influential is mixed. Licence restriction) In practice, many factors influence compliance with Vehicle sanctions (Vehicle impoundment, traffic laws and levels of offending. Penalties for non- Registration plate withdrawal, Vehicle compliance with traffic laws are intended to modify road immobilisation) user behaviour but they are not tailored to individual circumstances. Different penalties are likely to impact Alcohol interlock people in different ways. The behavioural effects of a Remedial programmes (treatment / rehabilitation) penalty may also vary from country to country because of a wide range of factors including: differences in the Imprisonment philosophy of crime and justice, perceived fairness The choice of penalty may be determined based on of legislative processes, prevailing social norms and the objectives, and the advantages and disadvantages cultural beliefs, penalty administration processes (i.e. of each type of penalty, as well as evidence relating to administrative versus judicial processes), coherence each penalty type (see summary Table in Appendix). of licensing and registration systems, level and type of The objectives of the penalties involve understanding police enforcement, and the level at which a behaviour of the penalty audience – whether to achieve general is considered illegal (e.g. speed limits, blood alcohol deterrence which targets the whole population concentration [BAC] limit). Evaluation studies also (prevent offending overall), and/or to achieve specific tend to examine the effects of a package of sanctions deterrence, which targets those who have already rather than an individual sanction effect. Therefore, it experienced detection, prosecution, and punishment is difficult to isolate specific effects of individual penalty (prevent re-offending). Different types of penalties are types. often combined to intensify the deterrent effect and Experience and evidence suggest that there are multiple achieve the best safety outcomes. Regardless of the ways to increase the impact of penalties to bring about type of penalty, they must only be applied in accordance desired behaviour change. It is important to recognise with legislated authority. Penalties have an important that there is no specific way to easily determine how educative role in that they can signal the level of risk severe a penalty should be to deter people from that is involved with various offences. For instance, it is committing a traffic offence. Different penalties are important that risker and more dangerous behaviours likely to impact people in different ways. For example, a result in more severe penalties. In this way, the severity monetary fine might be meaningful and influential for of the penalty is aligned to the level of danger imposed someone with limited financial resources, yet may have on the community by the person breaking the law. no influence on the offending behaviour of someone 5 A GUIDE TO THE USE OF PENALTIES TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE This Guide provides information about different types of penalties that have been applied to traffic offences. Penalties for traffic offences are a critical component of behaviour change techniques that have been used extensively with the aim of encouraging road users to comply with traffic laws and to use the road system safely. Having evidence-based legislation in place is important, but alone, it will not sufficiently deter illegal behaviours. Compliance with traffic laws can be achieved from the combined effects of legislation, increased public awareness, enforcement, and penalties. This Guide focuses on the penalty component only. 6 A GUIDE TO THE USE OF PENALTIES TO IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY INTRODUCTION Road users violate traffic laws for different reasons. Some people intentionally behave illegally. Other people might perform the same illegal behaviour unknowingly, while others may do so because of impaired judgement from alcohol and/or drugs. The threat of receiving penalties that are severe enough to deter offending may create intentions not to break the law, which in turn, can result in decreased offending. The underlying principle guiding the use of penalties is that behaviours that result in negative consequences are less likely to recur. Deterrence principles suggest that people make behavioural choices based on their personal perceptions of the threat of associated penalties1. This threat is said to be determined by a combination of four things: the perceived threat of being caught for breaking the law (perceived risk of apprehension), and the perceived certainty, severity and swiftness of punishments when caught2. The overall effect of penalties is linked to each of these four aspects of deterrence theory. The research evidence relating to which aspects of deterrence are most influential is mixed3. There are two additional deterrence-related concepts linked to enforcement of penalty regimes: general and specific deterrence. General deterrence refers to the impact of legislation and its enforcement on the whole population. The general deterrent effect relies on the general public having the perception that laws are enforced and that the risk of being caught and punished is high. Specific deterrence, by contrast, relates only to people who have already experienced detection, prosecution and punishment. The specific deterrent effect relies on offenders believing that their previous punishment experiences are sufficiently negative to deter reoffending. This inevitably has a varying degree of success in the offending population, ranging from